> What people complain about is that code that used to be perfectly portable Literally the whole point of the article is that this assertion is bullshit. It wa

> What people complain about is that code that used to be perfectly portable Literally the whole point of the article is that this assertion is bullshit. It was never perfectly portable. It merely happened to compile, and maybe work, and maybe actually was secure. > Rust just needs to help get one of the several alternative Rust implementations based on gcc officially supports similar to gccgo. Who is "Rust"? Why would they pour money and effort into this? Would the gcc community finally ignore rms' demands to make gcc as hostile as possible to implementing new front ends? > Then the portability issue will have been fixed once and for all and Rust will be chosen even for code on obscure targets such as Elbrus 2000, Sunway or Tricore. This does not solve the problem the author describes.